Presentation Transcript

1. Product Liability case study

2. Case Zane Johnson Vs. American Honda Motor Company Inc. Forum: United States District Court for the District of Montana (9th Circuit) Decided: March 26th, 2012
3. Case History Johnson purchased new 2007 Honda TRX 420FE ATV in 2007 July 4th, 2007 Johnson drove ATV on a maintained forest road when he failed to negotiate a right-hand turn and crashed travelling 20 to 25 mph Johnson said as he was about to make a right turn the steering locked up and forced him to go straight off the road in midair down a steep embankment causing injury June 2010 Johnson sued Honda in Montana state court for strict product liability and breach of express warranty Honda later removed the case (summary judgment) to the District Court 9th circuit on diversity jurisdiction
4. Essential Facts For summary judgment purposes, the Court is to take material facts from the record and, where disputed, view them in the light most favorable to the non-moving party Case is complicated because Johnson did not submit a statement of genuine issues in response to Honda’s motion as required by Local Rule 56.1(b)* Although no statement was filed, Johnson did submit a brief in opposite to Honda with several exhibits Plaintiff (Johnson) is pursuing a claim for strict product liability (Manufacturing & Design defect) Strict product liability claims are based on design defect, manufacturing defect, or failure to warn theories Case: 1) Honda’s motion for summary judgment 2) Johnson’s motion for limine*
5. Plaintiff’s Argument (Johnson) Manufacturing Defect Expert Rob Larson analyzed the ATV and found signs of unusual wear patterns and determined a certain part was not inserted deep enough for the axle Larson concluded this would cause “intermittent and difficult steering response when the operator exerted turning force through the steering bar assembly”
6. Defendants Arguments (Honda) Manufacturing Defect Expert Michael Stevenson evaluated both left and right front driveshaft and claims axle was fully inserted into constant velocity joint Stevenson also does not need to provide explanation for unusual wear because Johnson bears burden of establishing the defective ATV Reconstructionist Expert, Kubly, performed testing on exemplar ATV with shaft improperly inserted and completed removed. Both scenarios does not result in steering condition described by Johnson
7. Class Vote on Manufacturing Defect Do you believe Honda is entitled to summary judgment on Johnson’s manufacturing defect claim? No Court cannot say a matter of law that Larson’s report is necessarily incompatible with Johnson’s description of what happened It will be for the jury to evaluate the credibility of Johnson’s testimony and the weight of Larson’s opinion to determine whether the defected steering condition caused Johnson to drive off the road and crash
8. Plaintiff’s Argument (Johnson) Design Defect Johnson claims Honda owed him “a duty of care in the design of the ATV in question” and a “defect in design” was a “producing cause of his injuries and damages” Johnson claims he “is not required to provide an alternative design”
9. Defendant’s Argument (Honda) Honda claims Johnson failed to even allege a proper basis for a design defect claim and has not presented evidence of a proposed alternative design
10. Class Vote on Design Defect Do you believe Honda is entitled to summary judgment on Johnson’s design defect claim? Yes A design is improper or “defective if at the time of manufacture an alternative designed product would have been safer than the original designed product” (Krueger v. General Motors Corp) This means that evidence of alternative design is relevant and necessary for products liability claim which Johnson did NOT provide
11. Plaintiff’s Argument (Johnson) Breach of Warranty Johnson claims due to the ATV’s assembly defect, the vehicle failed to conform to the manufacturer’s express warranty
12. Defendant’s Argument Honda claims “the uncontested evidence provides that the axle shaft was properly assembled at the time of manufacture” and that Johnson “cannot prove a breach of warranty claim on this basis”
13. Class Vote on Breach of Warranty Do you believe Honda is entitled to summary judgment on Johnson’s breach of warranty claim? No Johnson’s manufacturing defect claim is valid so the claim for breach of express warranty. Therefore Honda’s motion for summary judgment is NOT valid
14. Plaintiff’s Argument (Johnson) Exemplar Testing Johnson characterizes Fowler’s tests as accident reconstruction and argues it is not admissible under Fed. R. Evid. 403* unless there is foundational showing reconstructions were similar to accident Johnson’s ATV had 1,000 miles where the exemplar ATV had only 18 miles
15. Defendants Argument (Honda) Honda did not attempt to establish substantial similarity between exemplar testing and accident but to demonstrate scientific and mechanical principles
16. Class Vote on Exemplar Testing Is Fowlers tests and experiments admissible for trial? Yes Fowlers exemlar testing is allowed because it was not designed to create the accidenet but to demonstrate scientific principles so foundational showing is not required (McKnight, 36F.3d at 1401)